Should mocking somebodies death be considered as Hate Speech?

I'm not saying mocking can't be hurtful; it just doesn't rise to the level of hate speech, IMO.

 

Hate speech is both legal and constitutionally protected. Even if something is classified as hate speech, overall the classification means absolutely nothing from a legal perspective.

 

What about people like Fred Phelps? He and his followers made awful scenes at the funerals of gay people. Is there no point in which mockery transitions to hate speech?

 

I think we're getting hung up on the definition of mockery. To me, mockery is nothing more than an insult. It doesn't foster hatred, and indeed, it sometimes brings laughter.

 

Remember when we were taught that sticks and stones might break my bones but names will never hurt me?

Would that not be infinitely more true for dead people?

 

I totally agree there. The media being a government propaganda machine is not free speech. We need freedom of the press to be able to get the truth on matters.

 

Fair enough. I absolutely agree if we are talking about harmless fun at someone else's (or their memory) expense and that's where it ends.

 

That is up to the people who manage the independent forums. They aren't bound by the first amendment. They can allow or disallow any speech they wish.

 

Also protected speech. The first amendment doesn't protect the speaker from the consequences of what he or she says.

 

That's usually what I do.

 

Why? Who does it hurt? Certainly not the dead person.

 

don't disagree, but still say protesting dead soldiers funerals is disgusting... but yes, they have the right to do it

hopefully everyone uses their free speech rights to condemn it

 

Disgusting to be sure. Nice speech doesn't need protection. Disgusting speech is what the first amendment is designed to protect. A free country provides for personal choice.

 

I'm a supporter of free speech, the more the better, imo.

Private, independent forums owners can set their rules to allow free discussion or to be heavily moderated, edited and censured.

The site owner picks the subject of the forum (e.g. "Politics") and has editorial control over content. Members get to decide whether to stay or go. Sites with less censorship will likely have more members posting more diverse ideas and opinions, which makes for a more successful site. Site with too narrow a subject or with excessive censorship and preference for one type of opinion over all other opinions will end up with a small-but-happy group of people who share the same insulated hive mentality.

I had to Google "stormfront". The site owner paid to set up a site for racist white people. I'll defend his right to choose that, but he's got a small membership, and I personally have no incentive to join that group. Nor do I have any incentive to join any small, non-diverse group which is set up specifically for blacks or hispanics or turnip-growers or people-who-knit-sweaters-out-of-their-pets-shed-fur forum, but I'll defend their right to exist on the internet.

So, no, I don't think that mocking the dead should be banned or censured. I think it's rude and tacky and don't do it myself, but my vote is to let people say what they wish.

 

Even the united nations does not believe that combating hate speech should involve censorship, or limiting freedom of expression.

https://www.un.org/en/genocidepreve...of Action on Hate Speech 18 June SYNOPSIS.pdf

"Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law."

 

If you read what united nations said, they do advocate controlling speech.

What do you mean by "inciting hatred".

 

And a crime or something? Of course not. If you don't like what someone says why does that incite hatred in you? Against who? The preson saying it so you think it should be against the law. And why someone who is dead, what about someone who is alive? Seems THAT would be more agregious.

 

Not if the dead person is a conservative or Republican

 

The larger question is even if it is designated as hate speech, then what?

Someone said something hateful...so what?

 

The left has been dunking on Herman Cain dying AND blaming it on Trump. The wrath has been fierce in comparison to John Lewis for example. Wonder if Lewis also died from Covid but had enough help to bury any evidence.

 

Why? Will the corpse notice?

 

I'd need to see an example of what you mean. If it's been censored I don't know how you could point me to it. Sometimes anti-Israel speech is considered anti-semitic.

On balance, I'd rather see zero censorship, making exceptions for calls to violence and porn -- especially child porn, but so much of adult porn is non consensual that I would err on the side of censoring that too.

Stuff like racism and sexism, we can call each other out on that, and if it gets pervasive, we can leave.

I also think any posts that disagree with my posts should be censored.

 

What are you even calling hate speech? I hate antifa and its membership. Is that hate speech?

 

Isn’t hate speech way easier to ignore than to obsess over and/or prosecute?